Patna High Court
Suman Prasad Srivastav vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 14 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9489 of 2017
======================================================
Suman Prasad Srivastav S/o Late Nathuni Lal R/o Muhalla-Housing Colony,
M I G-4, Chandwa, P.S.-Ara, Nawada, District-Bhojpur at Ara
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
2. District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara
3. District Education Officer, Bhojpur at Ara
4. The Executive Engineer, Shiksha Pariyojna, Bhojpur at Ara
5. Principal, Rajkiya Kanya Vidyalaya, Ara, P.S.-Ara, Nawada, District-
Bhojpur at Ara
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.C. Mishra- SC16
For BEPC : Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-05-2025
1. The Writ petition has been preferred for
issuance of direction to the respondents for
payment of the bill amounting to Rs.56,000/- along
with interest in connection with the repair,
painting, and washing work carried out by the
petitioner at Rajkiya Kanya High School, Ara, as per
the directions of the respondent authorities, in the
year 2012 and for any other relief/reliefs, which
the petitioner may be found entitled.
2. The key facts derived from the petition
Patna High Court CWJC No.9489 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
2/7
are that the petitioner was authorized to do
repairs, color painting, and washing of the building
of Rajkiya Kanya Vidyalaya, Ara, at the lowest rate.
The said work was authorized by the Vidyalaya
Management Committee, chaired by the District
Magistrate, Bhojpur, and District Education Officer
(DEO), Bhojpur, as Secretary. The petitioner
completed the assigned work to the full
satisfaction of the concerned authorities within the
stipulated time.
3. It is submitted by the petitioner that the
measurement of the completed work was
estimated as 19232.62 sq. ft., verified and certified
by the Executive Engineer, Shiksha Pariyojana, and
measurement report was submitted by the Junior
Engineer to the DEO's office vide Letter No. 6517
dated 27-11-2012. The petitioner duly submitted a
bill of Rs.1,56,000/- to the Principal and the
Vidyalaya Management Committee. The DEO,
Bhojpur, issued directions to the Principal vide
Letter No. 33 dated 05-01-2013, for payments to
the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9489 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
3/7
4. It is further submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that the Principal, through a letter dated
11-01-2013
, informed the petitioner that the bill
would be cleared by 31-01-2013. Subsequently,
Rs.99,990/- was paid vide Letter No. 72 dated 02-
02-2013 and the remaining amount of Rs.56,000/-
was assured to be paid after further approval.
5. It is submitted by the Learned counsel
for the petitioner that despite repeated oral and
written requests, including an application dated
10-09-2013 and a registered postal communication
dated 14-09-2013, the outstanding amount
remained unpaid. Thereafter, a legal notice was
sent on 18-06-2015, followed by two
representations dated 23-01-2017 and 11-02-2017,
requesting for immediate payment stating that
deteriorating physical and financial condition of the
petitioner.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioner
is constrained to file the Writ petition due to illegal
and arbitrary actions of the respondent, which are
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
Patna High Court CWJC No.9489 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
of India.
8. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by
5th Respondent.
9. At the outset, the respondent submitted
in his counter affidavit that the petitioner's claim
is not maintainable in a writ proceeding, as it
pertains to a disputed and unadmitted amount.
Therefore, the petitioner should pursue appropriate
remedy before a competent civil court.
10. It is submitted on behalf of the
respondent No. 5 that the work of whitewashing
and colouring the school building was approved by
the School Managing Committee, chaired by the
District Magistrate, Bhojpur. The work was
sanctioned from the School Development Fund
with a budgetary limit of Rs.1,00,000/-. In
accordance with the decision, a notice dated
15.05.2012 was published on the school's notice
board inviting quotations, explicitly stating that the
work must be completed within Rs.1,00,000/-.
Three contractors applied, and the petitioner was
awarded with the work being the lowest bidder.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9489 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
11. It is submitted by the Learned counsel
for the respondent that the petitioner commenced
work but later stopped, claiming that work worth
Rs.1,00,000/- had been completed. However, the
respondent states that as per the terms of the
notice, the entire scope of work had to be
completed within the Rs.1,00,000/- limit. Despite
agreeing to the budget, the petitioner claimed
Rs.1,53,860/- at the rate of Rs.8 per sq. ft., after
measurement of 19,232.62 sq. ft., which was
verified under the DEO's direction.
12. It is further contended in the counter
affidavit that a review by the School Managing
Committee reveals that the outer walls, which
were part of the contract, had not been painted.
Some completed work was unsatisfactory and the
measurements include uncompleted areas.
Consequently, it was decided to release the
sanctioned amount of Rs.99,990/- to the petitioner
with a condition that he would complete the
remaining and substandard work. This payment
was made vide Letter No. 72 dated 02.02.2013.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9489 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
The petitioner failed to complete the remaining
work, despite receiving payment under conditional
approval and continues to claim additional funds
contrary to the agreed terms. The petitioner also
filed Complaint Case No. 339C/2013 before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, against the then
In-Charge Headmistress, which is still pending.
13. The Learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that in light of these facts,
the respondent contends that the petitioner's claim
is baseless, unjustified, and contrary to agreed
terms, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to
be dismissed.
14. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the
respondents.
15. Upon perusal of the facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that the
reliefs prayed for in the writ petition pertain to a
disputed and unadmitted amount. The respondent
authorities have contested the petitioner's claim,
and the dispute involves factual issues which
Patna High Court CWJC No.9489 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
require detailed examination.
16. This Court is of the considered view
that such factual disputes cannot be adjudicated in
a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. If the petitioner is aggrieved,
he is at liberty to pursue his remedy before an
appropriate forum by instituting a civil suit for
recovery of the claimed amount. The petitioner
may raise all relevant contentions before the
competent civil court. This Court also finds that no
fundamental rights of the petitioner have been
violated or infringed.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed as devoid of merits.
18. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.05.2025
Transmission Date
